CFLs: Lighting the path to energy efficiency?

Unless you’re a die hard canadian football fanatic, you probably know that CFL stands for Compact Fluorescent Lamp, and you may also know that around the world, governments are banking on this technology making our old incandescent lightbulbs a think of th past. Canada and Australia have both mandated a ban on incandescent light bulbs (by 2010 and 2012 respectively).

The good news is that CFLs are far more efficient (roughly 3 times) than incandescent light bulbs, and can last much longer (varies, but on the order of 10 times longer). I would still like to see a full life cycle analysis of CFLs which take into account energy and materials used in manufacturing (they are much more complex pieces of technology). One of the drawbacks which has had the greatest attention is the fact that CFL bulbs contain mercury, which, if disposed of impoperly, becomes an airborne, easily absorbed toxin which can pass directly into our bodies and into the food we eat, as well as bioaccumulating in the food chain. The need to combine large scale use of CFLs with an extensive recycling program is therefore crucial. Fortunately, the technology to safely recover the mercury from used fluorescent lamps is fairly simple, and will hopefully be adopted through take-back programs by major retailers. However, mercury contamination due to accidental breakage may still be a concern- see Fox News’ piece of, ahem, reporting on the subject (if you can really take anything from Fox News (or the CEI, source of this story) seriously, which I can’t).

For a more enlightened (ouch, bad pun) illustration of the facts associated with CFLs, Clean Nova Scotia has an excellent page here. In particular, treehugger.com provides an insightful response to mercury concerns:

“Ironically, compact fluorescent bulbs are responsible for less mercury contamination than the incandescent bulbs they replaced, even though incandescents don’t contain any mercury. The highest source of mercury in America’s air and water results from the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, at utilities that supply electricity. Since a compact fluorescent bulb uses 75 percent less energy than an incandescent bulb, and lasts at least six times longer, it is responsible for far less mercury pollution in the long run. A coal-burning power plant will emit four times more mercury to produce the electricity for an incandescent bulb than for a compact fluorescent.”

While I think more policy action needs to be taken to encourage new technologies, I acknowledge that government light bulb bans could be seen as jumping onto a technological bandwagon before all the ramifications are clear (full life-cycle impacts for example, possibility of mercury exposure due to breakage) . However, because of these decisions, we should see a lot more focus on addressing these concerns as well as other possible efficient lighting solutions. Besides CFLs there are other promising technologies such as LED lighting, which will get a needed boost from the light bulb bans (not to mention the world of possibility in natural lighting through good design…).

As a side-note/rant: What I would like to know is how all these right wing, (purported) ‘free-market’ advocates like the CEI (who also generally take the view that technology, rather than behavioural change, will save us from the effects of our own consumption) think new solutions will be found if we persist in clinging to old technologies without providing incentives for new ones to develop? Their answer no doubt will be ‘market forces’ but this simply ignores the facts that existing markets are flawed in that they don’t account for all the externalities they create.

Dion’s Environmental Bull (Market)

I have to admit that hearing a political leader talking about market-based mechanisms for reducing carbon emissions in a way that makes sense gets me.. right.. there.. I start to get all teary and dream of the possibility that this country (or any country for that matter) might actually elect someone who can do something which is truly for the good of their people and the planet.

A lot of people are talking about the environment these days. What I think is significant is that it is finally gaining recognition not simply as an issue, but as THE issue. For anyone who understands the requirements of sustainability, not just in environmental terms, but in economic and social ones as well, it is apparent that this has been left off the agenda too long, and now needs top billing.

But is Stephane Dion going too far by saying “Canada can get rich by going green“? This has been an argument which most economics-savvy environmentalists have brought out when faced with the problematic issue of international competitiveness in light of uneven the adoption of the Kyoto accord and similar policies.

The basis for carbon trading is not “taxing” anybody, and it is not “selling” clean air. It is simply this: If we build in cost to polluting industries, we can use the same market mechanism to reward industries who are pollute less, thereby steering behaviours and consumer purchasing power towards more environmental benign products, technologies and activities. Indeed, as long as this is managed well in the short term, this could be manageable- maintaining a reasonable standard of living, while reducing emissions.

Kyoto attempted to organize this on an international scale, and threw in provisions for developing nations. This has been termed by many as “unfair” and has provided a lot of fodder for debate, though it is probably more of a red herring. The real issue, especially for Canada is the United States. With over 80% of our trade with the US, an uneven policy which increases the cost of Canadian manufacturing relative to the US threatens to greatly imbalance trade and foreign investment.

Dion’s argument, and the one that many of the ‘natural capitalism’ ilk use, is that in order to be competitive, we need to innovate, and to innovate you have to encourage technology development. Thus the creation of a carbon cap-and-trade system would place high economic value on technologies which reduce emissions. By taking an aggressive stand on reducing emissions, Canada could also become a world leader in developing environmentally friendly technologies.

I’ve found that when the issue of ‘technology’ is discussed, it often detracts from the issue of changing behaviours- which I believe is arguably more important. However, this is why the issue of economic cost is often overstated- without cost, there will be no change in behaviours towards cost avoidance. No matter how badly we want to have the best of both worlds, we have to recognize that environmental degradation and our culture of high resource use goes hand in hand.

Nevertheless, I support Dion’s argument. Here is why: International competitiveness is no longer merely an issue of resources- while Canada has benefited greatly from its resources in the past, it has failed to build economic power worldwide. Increasingly, Canadian resource companies are becoming foreign owned, while manufacturers are being threatened by rivals from less developed economies (think Bombardier vs. Embraer). Behind the US, the worlds largest economies are Japan, Germany, the UK, and France. These are not resource rich countries by any means. I would even venture that the economic competitiveness of these countries has something to do with their history of resource scarcity. Japan, has perhaps the lowest natural resources per capita (and while human resources are definitely significant, I think the point still stands), and is poised to take over the US as the world’s automotive manufacturing juggernaut (now if only we could just stop driving the things, we’d all be better off). All these countries faced serious economic and social catastrophe within the last century. Perhaps our worry about our ‘delicate’ economic position is causing us to forego valuable opportunities for development of competitive capacity in areas which are increasingly driving today’s’ more globalized economies: technology and innovation.

In my mind, sustainability is not a choice. Eventually, governments will be forced to reduce resource consumption, either compelled by environmental or economic considerations. If computers and the internet have been the innovation driving economic growth in areas such as silicon valley and south-east Asia, who will capitalize on the potential world markets for efficiency and environmental innovation? Dion’s environmental plan is also the most ambitious and bold economic strategy plan that perhaps the country has ever seen. We have reason to scrutinize such statements very carefully, but we also have reason to listen up.

It’s about risk, stupid

Jon Anda, in a recent article in the Financial Times, proves that climate change action isn’t just for environmentalists anymore. A legislated carbon cap-and-trade system is in my mind the no-brainer of the decade.. I have yet to see an argument convincing enough to persuade me otherwise. While it seems that by now each side should have exhausted their ammunition firing back and forth over the wasted ruins of Kyoto, the fires of debate seem to be able to continuously rage on the issue of carbon trading. One of the reasons for this is that it seems is that nobody is really arguing about the same thing. Debates on action to curb emissions blur into a debate on climate change science. Discussion of mechanisms are defeated because of uncertainties about targets. Mr. Anda’s important contribution to this debate is to put the argument for in terms of financial logic. He makes two very important points- one is that carbon trading arguments should have nothing to do with the argument over the validity of global warming science- If anyone has seen the recent climate change action ads with the train, this is like debating whether or not the train is real, or a fictional construct of your imagination, instead of just stepping out of the way. The other point is that the logic for acting to reduce emissions is not based on certainty of the outcome, it is based on the certainty of risk. Arguments for action have been far too easy to refute by simply demanding proof that such action would in fact achieve its objectives, or that inaction is certain to incur costs. The argument therefore becomes very similar to that employed for hedging. Of course, even after Bay St. is has convinced itself of this idea, the government is likely to maintain its current strategy of inaction. All these arguments do nothing to address the real source of change resistance- interests vested in high-emissions capital. It nevertheless seems perfectly obvious to me that of all the alternatives, employing market mechanisms to assign costs to emissions is the fairest way to go about reducing them. But then again maybe this is why the opposition exists.

Carbon Trading & the Entrepreneurial Spirit

A group of US States have agreed to implement a carbon trading systems despite opposition of such from the federal government. Now Australian states are heading in the same direction by contemplating opening a carbon market, despite outright opposition from prime minister John Howard, who argues that such a system would impact Australia’s coal industry. It would seem that many do not agree with this analysis; that such systems would represent an undue burden to industry. On the contrary, many companies perceive the opportunity to develop a competitive advantage.

Those who argue against carbon trading don’t appear to be able to offer up an alternative that would be as effective in reducing emissions. They make the arguments that such a scheme would impact industries and consumers, mostly through the added cost of energy. The problem with this is that no course of action besides “doing bugger all” will result in zero added cost in the short run (and even that strategy will incur high hidden future costs).Everyone acknowledges that something should be done to reduce pollution- no politician would succeed today on a platform calling for “more fossil fuel combustion! continued liberation of toxins into the air!” (though we have seen at the federal level in Canada and the US a policy of inaction that is basically supporting just that). The alternatives generally touted are technology, and, well, er.. technology. The public seems to be painfully aware of the oil & gas dependence that exists, therefore other energy technologies such as nuclear and “clean” coal are usually discussed. But the added cost argument falls flat given the costs of all the alternatives- clean coal technology reprepsents a costlier technology to implement- adding cost to energy producers and therefore consumers. I have yet to see a profitable private nuclear power producer. In fact, any new “technology” is likely to increase costs to industry in the short term as it is adopted.

Why no talk about technologies such as solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and other energy sources which are not only clean, but renewable? Simply, because these technologies do not yet have an established industrial base with which to influence policy. Conservative politicians who decry carbon-trading as unfair should take a dose of their own erstwhile free-market rhetoric, and the public should be asking itself whose interests these policy makers are really serving.

Long ago, economists realized that a free market is most efficient in terms of allowing the greatest value to be exchanged through trade. This shouldn’t be confused with equitable distribution, and doesn’t necessarily mean that all things should be distributed by way of a free market (basic services and public goods come to mind). But carbon IS a commodity- regardless of the price, the basic utility is the same, and the more you burn the more you can produce, ergo the more you can sell, and the better off you are.To enable a free market, you must have a sufficient quantity of players on both sides. This produces competition, which is essential to technical innovation. If “technology” is going to help us reduce our emissions, how do the carbon trading opponents suppose it is going to be developed? Dr. Hugh Saddler of the Australian company Energy Strategies, recently expressed his views with respect to the Australian government’s opposition:

“It’s really a cynical planning, picking-winners approach. It’s more akin to what used to happen in the old Soviet Union. Instead of letting the market decide which technologies are the best ones, letting consumers decide because they have a price signal, or letting different generators decide they might build a different type of power station, he actually seems to be saying, we’re going to choose the technologies and we’re going to put public money into them, not let the market decide, we’re going to decide as politicians. And then they are going to be the technologies which reduce emissions.

“We need to change the ways we use energy and the sources of energy towards lower emission energy sources and that’s not going to happen in a market economy unless you give all the economic agents a price signal, and a trading scheme is the first step towards giving just that price signal.

Perusing the members of the currently operating Chicago Climate Exchange yields a number of industry leaders such as Dupont, IBM, Ford, etc. who are participating in the trading system through voluntary emissions reductions. Is it all image? or are these companies deriving an advantage from such initiatives? The voluntary state of the carbon market means prices are much lower than with legislated limits. The environmental pages of the companies’ websites make no mention of carbon trading, so PR doesn’t seem to be an objective. Simply put, these are the companies who have the expertise and the means to find innovative ways to reduce emissions and become more efficient. Getting paid for the credits generated is icing on the cake.

But these companies can also gamble- small companies with innovative solutions but high risk exposure are being hurt as they wait in the wings for certainty about the future of emissions regulations. In Canada’s own burgeoning carbon market, the Montreal Climate Exchange (MCeX) has put off launch until after the Federal government unveils its plan (another potential player, the Canadian Climate Exchange (CCE) based in Winnipeg, has been MIA for over a year, and presumed dead).

This stands as just another sign that the world’s “business friendly” conservative governments are doing a disservice to the pursuit of efficient economics- they are seemingly more swayed by the self-interest of the status quo than by the need to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship in a dynamic marketplace.

The corporate and government leaders who recognize that strategy must look ahead and not backwards have begun to take the initiative. With the help of a little entrepreneurial spirit, hopefully in the future the label “green” will stand for both environmental and economic performance.

A Step Backward on Climate Change?

A great article appeared in the Globe and Mail last weekend about a prominent climate change opponent. The text of the article can be found on the author’s website. It is fairly clear to anyone who has read on the topic that the arguments for climate change are made on the basis of science, and have not been refuted by the scientific community. The arguments against climate change have been unable to discredit the science, but have been promoted to the extent that popular perception tends towards uncertainty and confusion on the issue.

As mentioned in the article, it would appear that thanks to our new Conservative leaders, Climate Change has become a bit of a dirty word for the Canadian Government. The federal government’s climate change website (www.climatechange.gc.ca) has apparently been removed. In its place is a notice directing you to two other government web-pages, neither of which appear to have anything to say on the subject.

So why the change? The Conservative government has promised to outline a new plan for managing emissions this fall. Can they really be taken in by the case against climate change (despite overwhelming scientific consensus supporting it)? Are they curbing to oil interests? Or is this an attempt to move the party line closer to that of their conservative counterparts to the south?

Personally, I would be willing to forgive this if it still meant that our federal government was planning on taking swift action towards implementing an effective plan for reducing emissions, creating incentives for not only new technologies, but energy conservation and efficiency. I personally a believe the best way to do this is the establishment of a carbon cap and trade system.

The problem is that this is not going to happen unless the idea can gain support both at the level of the general public and in the circles of industry. The concepts of climate change and the economic and environmental consequences of emissions trading systems are complicated enough for people to understand without casting more confusion into the issues. Industry has alternatives ready for action, but uncertainty about the government’s plans has delayed initiatives. Quietly submerging the visibility of climate change out of the view of the public only serves to perpetuate the confusion and uncertainty that are delaying action on what climate change is only one symptom of: The fact that we are continuing to deplete the natural capital of our planet by turning oil into carbon gas, and perpetuating our reliance on this unsustainable model for our survival.

Another Test for the UN

While it is my intention to leave out dicey political subjects as much as possible, I can’t help but being preoccupied with current events in the sphere of political and ideological conflict. Also, it is a subject with as much relevance to global sustainability as any other that you will find here.

Today’s UN mandated ceasefire in Lebanon represents another test of the organization’s effectiveness in the pursuit of peaceful resolution of conflict. It is difficult to feel hopeful- the UN’s ineffectiveness in situations past, the long and complicated history of middle-eastern politics, and the presence of ideological interests make a strong case for cynicism with respect to the current situation.

This leads to the prevalence of opinion, especially in those to the right of the spectrum, that the only solution to ideological conflict in the middle-east is for Israel, the U.S., and whatever “coalition of the willing” deems fit to participate, to lead a military action to rout out terrorist operatives and their fundamentalist leaders.

So who needs the UN? After all, a multinational force made up of dominant players has the democratic legitimacy and authoritative power similar to a peacekeeping force, without bureaucratic baggage that seemingly results in impotent half-measures when applied to incendiary situations such as currently exist in the middle-east.

The problem with this is that there is a very real need to understand as much as possible all the issues at stake. While debate and disagreement can result in inaction, it is a necessary process for a democratic institution. This inevitably bumps up against the realist viewpoint- which rightly questions to what extent these laudable, but slightly idealistic intentions provide actual utility? How democratic should we attempt to be? In what situations does the pursuit of democracy cause more harm than good?

Is the UN as doomed to failure as was the League of Nations? What are the alternatives? Recent history has already witnessed an expansion of NATO’s mandate of European and North American defense to include the new scope of the global war on terror.

One thing that is needed is a desire for peace. The inclusive nature of the UN attempts to create a forum which defeats unilateral action- something which generally results in one party’s gain and another’s loss, and encourages a multilateral approach with the intent to share the burdens of conflict equally, and to achieve a net reduction in the destruction and loss that would otherwise be incurred.

Is this in itself an ideology? I guess I would say that the UN needs a certain ideological quality to ensure its unity, and in turn its authority in acting on world matters. It is essential to preserve the consultative nature of the UN, especially as the issues become blurry.

A more militaristic organization is a flawed approach. Many of the greatest challenges in the conflict centers of the world today have roots in social and economic conditions that are not ameliorated by warfare. Poverty and lack of education result in the right conditions for fundamentalism and terrorism to gain a foothold. Decades (and even centuries, perhaps) of conflict in the middle-east have at least shown that violent action provokes a violent reaction, and undermines the conditions for internally generated peace and stability. The only occasions where truly constructive rebuilding in the wake of violence has occurred has been through the imposition of externally generated stability (enforced by military control), namely, such as has occurred after the world wars, in which case the scale of destruction was so great as to leave virtually nothing but a clean slate. This is the situation the UN was created to prevent, and we should not forget the possibility of this type of conflict in the future. The right action is to address the roots of these conflicts and attempt to eliminate the global economic imbalances that exist. This is hard for us to do as it entails sacrifice- not only of an economic type, but more importantly of an ideological belief that “we” as western powers are right, that the world should listen to us, and that if they just believed what we did, we could all get along and the world would be a better place. Come to think of it, doesn’t that sound like the kind of ideological fundamentalism that we would supposedly oppose so vehemently?

I humbly propose to you this: Sustainability is the ideology for the 21^st century. Belonging to no one, it represents a secular belief with a moral mandate. It acknowledges that we are all fundamentally fighting for our right to exist in this world, but more importantly may be our ability to do so.

Cities: The Careless and the Carless

An article in the travel section of the Globe and Mail today prompted this entry- it was an article about Montpellier France, an urban centre off-limits to cars. One observation is how pedestrians in a city are able to experience much more, and without the worry of cars, people are more free to do so. As a former automobile commuter, I now appreciate the ability to take public transit, walk, or bike to almost everywhere I need to go (benefits of living and working downtown Toronto- this model certainly doesn’t extend far enough across the GTA). I’ve also noted a distinct difference in perception resulting from the use of different transit modes. For example, nothing creates a more insular detached and uninspiring view of the urban environment than car travel. Whether walking or taking public transit, we are forced to be aware of those around us (either pleasantly or unpleasantly, but the experience nevertheless has a grounding effect on our conception of social reality), and the immediate human-scale amenities of the city (or lack thereof).

This brings to my mind other inspiring examples of transportation planning done right. Curtiba, Brazil, is a noted example and has employed networks of buses to achieve ridership rates of 70% among commuters, despite having one of the highest rates of car ownership in Brazil. As a side note, the bus system is privatized- 10 companies own and operate the bus systems, and operate without any subsidies.

The article’s author, John Allemang, contrasts the city’s philosophy on urban development with that of Toronto, where a streetcar right of way project on St. Clair Ave. has produced considerable opposition. Toronto stands, along with many North American cities, as an example of automobile-centric planning philosophy- plagued by smog, traffic congestion, and sprawl. An underdeveloped public transit system fails to compete with the alternative, and without ridership growth, must rely on government funding to continue to operate.

The worry of groups such as “Save our St. Clair” that oppose further development of public transit is that it will disrupt local businesses by reducing car traffic. I believe that this is a short-sighted objection- and I would contend that these local businesses are able to survive because St. Clair has the benefits of local pedestrian traffic due to the proximity of relatively dense neighborhoods, and streetcar transit. By giving free reign to cars, St. Clair will become simply a 2 lane thoroughfare, allowing expanded development in the west end of the city (where already a cluster of big-box stores has emerged), and impacting the local businesses.

We already know that car-centric design and sprawl are unsustainable. This concept of urban planning is based in a time where the abundance of fossil fuels seemed limitless, and that an automobile centered lifestyle would provide us with social advantages of freedom and convenience, instead of confining with congested freeways and downtown gridlock.

Transportation is a major planning concern, especially for a city which is already so spread out. There are plenty of working models we can look to, whether it is the streetcars and pedestrian-only areas of Montpellier, the buses of Curtiba, or the bikeways of many European cities. Toronto needs to take as example the best practices of cities that have succeeded in gaining reductions in automobile use while preserving the utility of urban spaces.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute

Came across a couple of TV spots from another insidiously named lobby group called the “Competitive Enterprise Institute”. These attempt to counter the “alleged global warming crisis” by alerting us to the vile liberal conspiracy that would seek to get rid of our precious carbon dioxide- muah ha ha!… and they would be pretty funny.. if they weren’t actually serious.

http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm

So what’s the deal with these guys? Well, they “believe that individuals are best helped not by government intervention, but by making their own choices in a free marketplace.” Fair enough, but looking over some of their actual position statements, I have to wonder what kind of role these right wing policy organizations feel IS appropriate for government? Maybe it is to intervene only when it is in the interest of their supporters, whoever they happen to be.

The viewpoints expressed on their website somehow try to put forth a legitimate stand against air quality legislation, against “anti-sprawl” legislation, against energy conservation- list goes on- in every area they make statements that would seem to completely contradict my instinctive viewpoint on the topic. Am I out to lunch here?

What I believe: A “free market” exists where consumer choice can be made without distortions from subsidies. Our economy has been massively subsidized by wholesale waiving of environmental and social costs associated with fossil fuel use for centuries. Western foreign policy has continuously propped up the economic subsidies that have enabled us North Americans to enjoy the cheapest fuel and energy in the world. In order to establish a truly level playing field for “competitive enterprises”, we need to begin accounting for all costs, and implement legislation to start getting these markets working for everyone.

Excuse the rantiness of this bit, but I just can’t believe some of the conclusions that intelligent people are capable of. I’m all in favour of hearing both sides of the debate, but not when the devices of propaganda are so blatantly used.

BTW, anyone interested in an explanation of why the research that CEI claims supports a non-global warming scenario doesn’t, can find one here.